Tweet
Can someone please advise me on the following point.
At any one time, should a Magistrate be dealing with two separate cases, which concern one individual, wouldn't this be seen as a conflict of interest.
It has amazed me just how much leniency has been shown by the magistrate during case management, toward the other party (claimant).
We have known that this 'other party' has been fighting to suspend the 'repossession of his property'.
A document (an application) has come into my possession which clearly shows that this individual has attempted to 'suspend' the repossession of a property, citing that this individual has a 'substantial claim for damages' against myself, which if successful will remedy the situation.
This application is to the same Court, and the individual has even gone as far as to state in other documentation that the Judge is the same Judge. which would then explain the leniency and the unnecessary prolonging .
I also found it quite suspicious, when my application to 'strike out', was 'adjoined' until after the date of the repossession hearing.
Infact the case management has only really progressed, in the absence of this judge.
Or am I just paranoid.
A few years ago, I might not have questioned such things, but my respect and confidence in the system has long since gone.
At any one time, should a Magistrate be dealing with two separate cases, which concern one individual, wouldn't this be seen as a conflict of interest.
It has amazed me just how much leniency has been shown by the magistrate during case management, toward the other party (claimant).
We have known that this 'other party' has been fighting to suspend the 'repossession of his property'.
A document (an application) has come into my possession which clearly shows that this individual has attempted to 'suspend' the repossession of a property, citing that this individual has a 'substantial claim for damages' against myself, which if successful will remedy the situation.
This application is to the same Court, and the individual has even gone as far as to state in other documentation that the Judge is the same Judge. which would then explain the leniency and the unnecessary prolonging .
I also found it quite suspicious, when my application to 'strike out', was 'adjoined' until after the date of the repossession hearing.
Infact the case management has only really progressed, in the absence of this judge.
Or am I just paranoid.
A few years ago, I might not have questioned such things, but my respect and confidence in the system has long since gone.
